The Method...

Estudia: Hey Phi, nice to be here. Listen, what was the question?

Philo: We are going to discuss the method of cognition.

Estudia: Oh, that’s it! We discussed the central question, which was about knowledge and how we acquire it. We opted for objectivity but there must be a method of thinking that goes with objectivity. What is it?

Philo: Logic. Logic is the only way your consciousness, which is free to think or not, can conform to reality.

Estudia: It is the method of reason then, no?

Philo: Yes, an Aristotle discovered this long ago. Logic is the science of identifying entities without contradiction. You saw that knowledge is to understand or to grasp an entity. We must know something about the object and that means we must be able to identify it.

Estudia: On the perceptual level we realize that something exists. Doesn’t this give us knowledge about an object?

Philo: Yes, but we only know that there is something out there. To identify it, we must be able to define what is out there in explicit terms. That is the task of our conceptual thinking. No matter what you are thinking about it boils down to one question.

Estudia: What is it?

Philo: Exactly.

Estudia: Wait a minute now. “What is it?” is the question. How can that be?

Philo: Well, think about it. If you ask “Why” something occurred, you are asking, “What is it that caused that something to occur?” Or, if you ask, “How did that happen?” You really are asking, “What is it that happened and by what process?”

Estudia: How about if I ask “Where did that come from?”

Philo: Then you are asking, “What is the place that it came from?” You see, no matter what, existence has primacy; it comes first and consciousness can only identify that which is. Ayn Rand summed this up with her statement; “Existence is Identity: Consciousness is Identification.”

Estudia: Okay, I think I see that. If something is, it has a nature by the law of existence. And consciousness is something so it has a nature too, and its function is to discover the nature of things. “Existence is Identity: Consciousness is Identification.”

Philo: Yes, and the Identification must be non-contradictory. If something is A then it can’t be non-A. Aristotle stated this as a formal principle. It can’t be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. This is a corollary of the law of identity. This is the defining principle of reality-based thought. No matter how complex an issue it must be integrated into our knowledge without contradiction. We use logic to prove the truth of something. This means we reduce a proposition to axioms, and ultimately to sensory evidence. This is the only means that we have of verifying the truth between non-axiomatic propositions and reality itself.

Estudia: Isn’t a syllogism an example of logic? A syllogism like “All women are mortal. I am a woman. Therefore, I am mortal.”

Philo: That’s right. The premises are, “All women are mortal.” and “You are a woman.” The conclusion follows because if you deny that “You are mortal” then you would contradict the premises.

Estudia: To deny the conclusion, I’d be saying, “All women are mortal but here’s one that is not.

Philo: That is the soul of every process of logic. You observe the facts and use them as premises, then you apply the law of contradictions to draw a proper conclusion. There is an art to the science of logic.

Estudia: So logic is “the art of non-contradictory identification.”

Philo: Exactly, but you must remember that logic is the means of objectivity. So, a logical conclusion has to be derived from reality. You must know something before you can begin using logic. There has to be some knowledge of reality that comes before you can even make a premise. You must always check your premises carefully. If you make up premises arbitrarily, like “Santa Claus wears a red hat, red hats are real, therefore Santa Claus is real,” you are dropping any objectivity. To prove something you must establish the truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, and really, to the evidence of your senses. Any non-axiomatic proposition’s relationship to reality must be “proved” in this manner.

Estudia: I can see that we take the data of our senses and organize it to build concepts. We have to build on our earliest integrations to form higher concepts. This isn’t automatic so we need a method. I can see that logic would give us a method to move from step to step. Logic depends on how our consciousness works and it depends on the facts of reality.

Philo: And this brings us to the topics of context and hierarchy, both of which are absolutely necessary if you want to understand logic and objectivity.

Central Questions...

Estudia: Now, what is the central question of epistemology?

Philo: The central question is what is the meaning of is.

Estudia: Hahhaha.... very funny but I know that’s not it. Seriously, what is it?

Philo: What is knowledge and how do we acquire it? That is the central question.

Estudia: What is knowledge? I know that you want me to be objective, so when I perceive objects, I do it automatically, but when I form concepts, I must know something about the objects. I had to grasp it perceptually and I had to integrate it into my conceptual faculty by an active process. This measurement omission approach which I chose or learned or whatever. That is knowledge isn’t it?

Philo: Yes, but the important point to remember is that your concepts must conform to reality. Your knowledge is the grasp of that object. In order to grasp it you had to use your abstracting and integrating capabilities, and that is not automatic like your perceptual abilities; hence it is not automatically correct either. So you need a method of thinking that will allow you to remain connected to reality.

Estudia: Isn’t the measurement omission process inherent in my conceptual faculty? Isn’t that how you said our consciousness works?

Philo: Yes, but we want to identify a way to guide our minds in the aspects of concept formation that are under our control.

Estudia: Do we need a method of cognition for important things like the meaning of our lives? We aren’t automatically right and so our conclusions about what method to think with will be in error. How can we ever know truth if we aren’t automatically right?

Philo: Ah, my little one, you have articulated the skeptics’ arguments perfectly. If you were religious, you would have come to the conclusion that we need to just turn our minds over to God. He is always right, not us mere humans. But you see it is for this very reason that we must define a method of thinking. We are fallible and we must have a method to guide our thinking. It is both necessary to know reality and it is possible. That is the purpose of epistemology.

Estudia: Hummm... well, whatever method you come up with, it has to take into account the facts of reality which are external to us, and the way our minds work. You said that consciousness is a faculty―the faculty of perceiving that which exists; and, since it is something, it has identity, and has a certain way of working.

Philo: That’s right, and the mind must act according to its nature. This is what it means to be objective. You have a theory of concepts down now. And you know how to form them. So if you wish to be objective you must adhere to reality by following certain rules. You have to use some method that is based on facts and is appropriate to your way of thinking. You see, existents themselves are not objective; they just are what they are. It is you mind, the way you think, that is objective or nonobjective.

Estudia: I like to think of myself as being objective. I always try to focus on reality, but that does take some resolve as lots of people do not. What other choice do we have? Nothing else makes sense does it?

Philo: No, nothing else makes sense, but there are two other choices. One is to look for a shortcut, to stare out, or inward, or upward, and wait for something to be revealed to you.

Estudia: By God?

Philo: Or, by your subconscious, or by the ether, or intuition or extrasensory perception or whatever.

Estudia: What’s the other choice?

Philo: To just give up. Ignore reality and turn inward. Create your own internal universe, or the universe as created by a group of individuals. To be pragmatic and know that there is no truth and whatever works for you is what is right.

Estudia: So, if objectivity requires a method of thinking, what is it?

Philo: Ha... nice try, again. Next time. I’ll see you later.